Talk:Aviation history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Aviation history as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Portuguese language Wikipedia.
Aviation history is part of WikiProject Aircraft, an attempt to better organize articles related to aircraft. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Aviation WikiPortal


I was so surprised that I didn't see a single reference in Wikipedia to Alexander F. Mozhaiski (1825-1890), Russian naval officer, aviation pioneer, researcher and inventor in the design of heavier-than-air-craft. This gentleman took his machine into the air 20 years or so earlier than the Wright brothers (I can translate the material from Russian and submit it, if Wikipedia creates a link for his name). Even though people say that the Russians simply want credit for the first flight, I say it is simply unfair not to at least mention Mozhaiski's outstanding achievements in aviation even if the tsarist Russia had been ignoring the guy for most of the time because of bureaucratical stupidity and narrow-mindedness. Mozhaiski even patented his invention, but international community never really cared about patents issued in Russia to its "local" inventors.

Welcome to the magic of wikipedia. I took the liberty of transforming your comment in an article about aleander. Take the time to edit and translate at will.--Alexandre Van de Sande 18:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have to say I'm delighted to see Wikipedia dabbling in radical thoughts! 8) That, and not repeating the errors that "everyone knows", is the kind of thing a cyclopedia should do. WP needs to do that much more often. (I leanred a lot today. I'd thought the Wright's real contribution was control surfaces--powered flight was obvious and just a matter of time--but now I see Pearce was probably the most modern in that. Guess the Wrights were first in having a piccy taken.) Kwantus 04:05, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No they are arguable the first to achieve a controlled powered heavier-than-air flight and they were the first to photograph a controlled powered heavier-than-air flight, the first to fly more than a kilometer, the first to fly more than 1/2 hour (before Santos-Dumont got off the air) the first to carry passengers, the first to fly a woman, the first mass-produced aircraft, the first US military aircraft contractor, builder of the first plane to fly across the United States, etc. And Pearce's work had no influence on the development of aircraft even if his design are closer to modern ones -they were developed indepentently. Pearce chucked his work in a garbage heap after it failed and didn't publish it. Rmhermen 19:20, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)
hehee. Well I'm not convinced Pearce failed except in publicity. I don't care if his methods had to be reinvented, as far can be found his methods were the more practical. (If the Wrights' control surfaces were truly their own, then that is to their credit of course, even if their method was wrong.) "First to fly more than a kilometer, the first to fly more than 1/2 hour" is just arbitrary quantification to make records - typifying the Mercan craving to claim firsts which is what's getting up my nose. "First to carry passengers" is an accomplishment but not an innovation - having a somhow nonobvious idea - same with putting an engine on a glider. (The propeller itself might count as innovative - and apparently the Wright's propeller was pretty good anyway.) "First to fly a woman" is just sexism. (It reminds me of NASA's attempt to make every flight a first in something. What was Bloom County's take - "first adenoidal mulatto touch-typist"? give it a rest.)
The Wrights had some firsts and good ideas and some not so good, and so did others. They should all be given their due - as best that antique due can be determined - without manufacturing or suppressing dues just so the You Assay! can have a bigger tally =p Kwantus 03:45, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps this article should be turned into a timeline format like on the History of rail transport article. It would certainly make it more readable.

And secondly why is there a accuracy dispute header. G-Man 00:09, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

  • See edit of 02:16, 18 Dec 2003. Andy Mabbett 00:22, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • That doesn't really explain it. what facts are disputed exactly G-Man 00:28, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)


With regards to rockets, shouldn't it be mentioned that this is offically not part of aviation history anymore but a different subject? Andries 08:32, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Rockets and rocketry are a part of aviation, and therefore are a part of aviation history. Aviation history includes anything that flies through the air and is man-made, which includes helicopters, ornithopters, baloons, dirigibles, blimps, rockets and missiles.Theon 16:16, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Quoting from article:

The best plane of the war is generally agreed to be the Sopwith Camel;

This is too bold of a statement to be considered true. If any plane deserves this honor it has to be the Fokker D.VII. -- Dissident (Talk) 04:52, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agree - any thing that asserts "best" should back it up with some facts or stick to less contentious language.Graham 06:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since "Wright Brothers Flyer" outweighs "Wright Brothers Fligher" by about 10,000 : 2 (one of them this article) in Google, I'm assuming that Fligher was a misspelling and have corrected it. dramatic 06:02, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that's a safe bet. Graham 06:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Wright brothers

I just had a little work Npoving this and some other aviation articles. Please do not overweight Wright briothers as the fathers of aviations. The best is tonot to name anyone this title, as one can see that the invention of the airplane was a long lines of great people, no matter wich natinatility, italian, german, englishman, americans and brazilian. Try to give everyone equal weight, as years of nationalistics fights have been fought over this subject. Wrights'were a small implementation of what otto did, and so was dumonts, to waht wright did, even if they haver never met.--Alexandre Van de Sande 17:55, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While you're right, I believe to NOT give the Wright's the credit they deserve is also not NPOV. I don't think the Wright's themselves ever claimed anything for themselves that they got from others, and gave credit where it was due; however, they were the first to both properly study aerodynamics in a self-constructed wind tunnel and apply the principles that they learned to their design - they were also the first to really consider the problems of control and designed an engine with adequate power to weight ratio. Sure, if they hadn't done this then it would only have been a matter of time before someone else did - after all, all the technology necessary came together at about that time. But the fact remains that they WERE the ones to put it all together, and also prudently photographed their flights as proof. It may be that others beat them to it, but didn't take care to record their results or to publish them in a timely fashion - sorry, that's how history works. I believe the article as it stands actually gives excessive space to many of the other heroic failures in this story at the expense of the Wright's - to me that reflects a certain wistful patriotism on behalf of those nations who coulda/woulda/shoulda managed the deed, but for whatever reason didn't quite make it. Get over it - the Wrights were the ones that history recognises for this achivement and rightly so. Graham 06:49, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
P.S. I'm not an American, in case you thought that - but I believe in credit where it's due. Graham 06:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From what I have read, the Wrights (including the Wright sister, in the early kite experiments) did much more than anyone else of that period to advance aviation. It is a shame that there was not someone else to handle business affairs so they could go on inventing. The rate at which they made progress is almost incredible. David R. Ingham 17:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] They missed the effect of Reynolds number?

I think I read that the problems in 1901 or so were due to a wrong constant they used to scale up. That would mean that they were trying to include the Reynolds number effects in 1901 and succeeded in 1902. I don't see how they could have benefitted much from a small wind tunnel without it. David R. Ingham 15:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If they had not known about the Reynolds number effects at all, their surprise in 1901 would have been a pleasant one. They seem to have read of everything ever published about aerodynamics, with the help of Octave Chanute David R. Ingham 15:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Head wind

I think the opinion that the Wright brothers' first flight was not a true powered flight because they used a head wind is extremely far fetched. The airplane could take off in still air and did so later. The reason for the headwind was to avoid being killed if it crashed, by reducing the ground speed. Of course that is also why it was so slow. I don't think their credit can be diminished, as engineers, for being prudent about their own lives. Many other features were safety oriented. On a list of daredevils, they are far back in the pack; but they invented, not only the first airplane, but one that was safer than many that followed. David R. Ingham 04:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Known Flight

Armen Firman, a Moor, made a partially successful flight c. 850 ad (although that may be better viewed as a parachute jump). Ibn Firnas, another Moor, made a flight c. 875. William of Malmesbury records a flight of 1 furlong (220 yards) as being made by an Anglo-Saxon monk named Eilmer c. 1000ad.

These flights also mean that da Vinci was not the first to seriously design an aircraft.

Perhaps this article should be modified to include these points. I see no reason to discount Malmesbury's account but, sadly, I have no knowledge of the primary sources for Firman and firnas.

[edit] Santos Dumont

It´s impressive how you may believe in some pics taken by Wright´s employees of a glide shot by a catapult, in a private flight at their farm, supposedly some couple of years before the publication of them. If the creator of a glider shall be the father of aviation, let´s give the credits then to DaVinci. 201.6.253.247 18:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't understand this entry at all. What does a catapult have to do with the Wrights or with Santos Dumont? David R. Ingham 00:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thats an easy one: Dumont´s "14 bis" aircraft is considered as the first airplane invented due to the fact that it was able to took off without beeing catapulted(like the Wright Brothers' aircrafts) or trown off higher points(like most of the other attempts). Due to this reason, Santos Dumont is considered the inventor of the Airplane in most of the non-english speaking countries such as Brazil, Italy, Germany, France, Portugal, Spain and their former colonies(French, Portuguese and Spanish) in Africa and Asia. Dumont is also considered to be the inventor of the airplane in most of South America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay). --201.52.73.182 04:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the revert [[1]]. I think the article, as is, is unusually neutral, considering that the Wright's patent was upheld by the US patent office. Glenn Curtiss would certainly not have missed a foreign flight that might have voided the Wright's patent. David R. Ingham 02:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It is understandable the the Santos Dumont supporters don't use as good English as the Wright Brothers supporters do. However the idea that the Wright brothers' plane did not take off on its own power can only be a confusion with Samuel Langley's attempt. David R. Ingham 03:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry to dissapoint you, but the Wright brothers' aircraft took off with the aid of a ballista. It is documented. --201.52.73.182 04:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It is impressive that they didn't know this. And where is the neutrality here? There is much more about Wright Brothers than Santos-Dumont in this article.

[edit] "nearly impossible"

I don't like the new paragraph:

"Lilienthal knew that once an engine was attached to the plane it would be nearly impossible to further study the laws of aviation. The finding and describing of many of those laws were his greatest heritage to his successors, as they were able to construct their planes accordingly and thereby save themselves years of trial and error."

Don't people study flight with powered airplanes now? Hadn't Penaud and Langley studied flight with powered models already? Didn't the Wright Brothers continue to make some progress after 1903? Lilienthal was not ready to use an engine, because his control method did not scale to larger aircraft and because he didn't know about or didn't follow the bridge engineer who had figured out how to build a strong biplane. David R. Ingham

[edit] "there are more piston aircraft flying than any other type"

If we don't restrict ourselves to piloted aircraft, there are probably more rubber powered model airplanes than jet and piston aircraft combined.

Also shouldn't that be "internal combustion". Steam airplanes had pistons. David R. Ingham 05:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess the writer really meant "airscrew driven" as opposed to jets. However, since that's probably obvious, perhaps the wording should be changed so it's not meant to sound surprising. Graham 05:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

In addition to my fondness for rubber power, the point is that some other statistic like passenger miles might be more interesting. Why count the pilot to rule out rubber power, but refuse to multiply by the passengers or the distance, to come out ahead of jets? David R. Ingham 03:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree; it's a meaningless and uninteresting remark, made to sound like it's supposed to be significant. But as you probably know, 87% of all statistics are simply made up on the spot. Graham 11:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient Flying Machines

I removed a huge block of bogus history. Sample below:

There are reference to flying machines in the temple carvings and in the ancient writings.

The images found on the ceiling beams of a 3000-year old New Kingdom Temple, located several hundred miles south of Cairo and the Giza Plateau, at Abydos resembles modern day aircraft.

Reference to ancient Indian flying vehicles comes from ancient Indian sources, many are the well known ancient Indian Epics, and there are literally hundreds of them. Most of them have not even been translated into English yet from the old sanskrit.

It is claimed that a few years ago, the Chinese discovered somesanskrit documents in Lhasa, Tibet and sent them to the University of Chandrigarh to be translated. Dr. Ruth Reyna of the University said recently that the documents contain directions for building interstellar spaceships!

Their method of propulsion, she said, was "anti-gravitational" and was based upon a system analogous to that of "laghima," the unknown power of the ego existing in man's physiological makeup, "a centrifugal force strong enough to counteract all gravitational pull."

According to Hindu Yogis, it is this "laghima" which enables a person to levitate. Dr. Reyna said that on board these machines, which were called "Astras" by the text, the ancient Indians could have sent a detachment of men onto any planet, according to the document, which is thought to be thousands of years old. The manuscripts were also said to reveal the secret of "antima"; "the cap of invisibility" and "garima"; "how to become as heavy as a mountain of lead."

...

The Indologist William Clarendon, who has written down a detailed description of the mercury vortex engine in his translation of Samaranga Sutradhara quotes thus ‘Inside the circular air frame, place the mercury-engine with its solar mercury boiler at the aircraft center. By means of the power latent in the heated mercury which sets the driving whirlwind in motion a man sitting inside may travel a great distance in a most marvelous manner.

Four strong mercury containers must be built into the interior structure. When these have been heated by fire through solar or other sources the vimana (aircraft) develops thunder-power through the mercury. It is also added that this success of an Indian scientist was not liked by the Imperial rulers. Warned by the British Government the Maharaja of Baroda stopped helping Talpade. His efforts to make known the greatness of Vedic Shastras was recognised by Indian scholars, who gave him the title of Vidya Prakash Pra-deep.

    • Anti-Gravity Studies

The Indian Emperor Ashoka started a "Secret Society of the Nine Unknown Men": great Indian scientists who were supposed to catalogue the many sciences. Ashoka kept their work secret because he was afraid that the advanced science catalogued by these men, culled from ancient Indian sources, would be used for the evil purpose of war, which Ashoka was strongly against, having been converted to Buddhism after defeating a rival army in a bloody battle. The "Nine Unknown Men" wrote a total of nine books, presumably one each.

...

It is interesting to note that when Alexander the Great invaded India more than two thousand years ago, his historians chronicled that at one point they were attacked by "flying, fiery shields" that dove at his army and frightened the cavalry. These "flying saucers" did not use any atomic bombs or beam weapons on Alexander's army however, perhaps out of benevolence, and Alexander went on to conquer India.

It is interesting to note, that the Nazis developed the first practical pulse-jet engines for their V-8 rocket "buzz bombs." Hitler and the Nazi staff were exceptionally interested in ancient India and Tibet and sent expeditions to both these places yearly, starting in the 30's, in order to gather esoteric evidence that they did so, and perhaps it was from these people that the Nazis gained some of their scientific information! According to the Dronaparva, part of the Mahabarata, and the Ramayana, one Vimana described was shaped like a sphere and born along at great speed on a mighty wind generated by mercury.

...

The after-affects of this Iron Thunderbolt have an ominously recognizable ring. Apparently, those killed by it were so burnt that their corpses were unidentifiable. The survivors fared little etter, as it caused their hair and nails to fall out. Perhaps the most disturbing and challenging, information about these allegedly mythical Vimanas in the ancient records is that there are some matter-of-fact records, describing how to build one. In their way, the instructions are quite precise. In the Sanskrit Samarangana Sutradhara, it is written: "Strong and durable must the body of the Vimana be made, like a great flying bird of light material. Inside one must put the mercury engine with its iron heating apparatus underneath. By means of the power latent in the mecrcury which sets the driving whirlwind in motion, a man sitting inside may travel a great distance in the sky. The movements of the Vimana are such that it can vertically ascend, vertically descend, move slanting forwards and backwards. With the help of the machines human beings can fly in the air and heavenly beings can come down to earth."

The Hakatha (Laws of the Babylonians) states quite unambiguously: "The privilege of operating a flying machine is great. The knowledge of flight is among the most ancient of our inheritances. A gift from 'those from upon high'. We received it from them as a means of saving many lives." More fantastic still is the information given in the ancient Chaldean work, The Sifrala, which contains over one hundred pages of technical details on building a flying machine. It contains words which translate as graphite rod, copper coils, crystal indicator, vibrating spheres, stable angles, etc.

Ancient Indian Aircraft Technology From The Anti-Gravity Handbook by D. Hatcher Childress Many researchers into the UFO enigma tend to overlook a very important fact. While it assumed that most flying saucers are of alien, or perhaps Governmental Military origin, another possible origin of UFOs is ancient India and Atlantis. What we know about ancient Indian flying vehicles comes from ancient Indian sources; written texts that have come down to us through the centuries. There is no doubt that most of these texts are authentic; many are the well known ancient Indian Epics themselves, and there are literally hundreds of them. Most of them have not even been translated into English yet from the old sanskrit.

Mark Foskey seems to have neglected to sign this.

Thanks Mark. If I looked at all, I didn't reat that stuff. It was all inserted at once, anonomously. David R. Ingham 08:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC) _______

A subset could address Aviation Historiography (the study of the recorded history of mechanical flight), which is extensive. Among current aviation historians are such folks as Walter Boyne, Richard P. Hallion, and Barrett Tillman in the US as well as Norman Franks and Christopher Shores in the UK. However, it might be difficult to say just when the recording of aviation history began, considering the narrow distinction between "today's headlines" and the close chronological relationship between, say, the Wrights and WW I (10 years).

[edit] Saqqara Bird

What about the "Saqqara Bird"? It's a new article on Wikipedia but worths a mention as it predates any other examples of early aviation. Aran|heru|nar 11:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Airships

I found the article very interesting. With today’s fuel problems would airships not be morepratical? Are there other reason apart from the public’s perception that prevent it being a viable option?Schnizzle 15:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Woman Aeroplane Passenger

"In late 1908, Madame Hart O. Berg became the first woman to fly when she flew with Wilbur Wright in Le Mans, France."

This is wrong. Mrs. Hart O. Berg was only the first American woman aeroplane passenger. The first woman aeroplane passenger was Thérèse Peltier on 8 July 1908 when she made a flight of 656 feet with Léon Delagrance in Milan, Italy. This is recognised by the Smithsonian here: http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/women_aviators/therese_peltier.htm

Several other women had flown in unpowered heavier-than-air craft before this e.g. Dorothy Pilcher in a glider in 1897 and Lela Cody beneath a kite in 1902 (and many women had, of course, flown in lighter-than-air craft such as balloons).

I've added Thérèse Peltier and I've corrected Mrs Hart's entry. 217.205.243.42 19:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC) random passer-by. Re-signed as suggested Random Passer-by 16:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/v/i/Talk%7EAviation_history_8a51.html"